Lukov Vl. A

The complication of city life, the growth of the state apparatus, the development of international relations made new demands on education. The literacy rate in the 17th century increased significantly and in various strata amounted to: among landowners 65 percent, merchants - 96, townspeople - about 40, peasants - 15, archers, gunners, Cossacks - 1 percent. In the cities, quite a few people already sought to teach their children to read and write. But the cost of education was not cheap, so not everyone could study. Women and children in wealthy families usually remained illiterate. The teachers were churchmen or clerks (who served in orders). As before, literacy was most often taught in the family. One of the main methods of pedagogy, as in the 15th century, was corporal punishment "rod", "crushing of the ribs", "rod". The essay on pedagogy "Citizenship of Children's Customs" is very indicative - a set of rules that determined all aspects of children's lives: behavior at school, at the table, when they meet people; clothing and even facial expressions. Books of religious content remained the main teaching aids, but several secular publications were also published: ABC books by Burtsev (1633), Polotsky (1679) and Istomin (1694), which were wider in content than their titles, and included articles on dogma and pedagogy, dictionaries, etc.; alphabet books - dictionaries foreign words, introducing philosophical concepts, containing brief information on national history, about ancient philosophers and writers, geographical materials. These were manuals, manuals, which already in elementary school provided acquaintance with a fairly wide range of problems.

Secondary schools appeared in Moscow, including private ones, where not only reading, writing, arithmetic, but also foreign languages ​​and some other subjects were studied: 1621 - an all-estate Lutheran school in the German Quarter, Russian boys also studied there; 1640s - private school boyar F. Rtishchev for young nobles, where they were taught Greek and Latin, rhetoric and philosophy; 1664 - a state school for training clerks of the Order of Secret Affairs at the Zaikonospassky Monastery; 1680 - a school at the Printing House, the main discipline in which was the Greek language, etc.

In 1687, Patriarch Macarius in the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow opened the first higher educational institution in Russia - the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy for free people "of every rank, rank and age" to train the higher clergy and civil service officials. The first teachers of the academy were the Likhud brothers, Greeks who graduated from the University of Padua in Italy. The Likhud brothers, Ioaniky and Sophrony, gave the first courses in "natural philosophy" and logic in the spirit of Aristotelianism at the academy. The composition of the students was heterogeneous, representatives of different classes studied here (from the sons of a groom and a bonded man to relatives of the patriarch and princes of the most ancient Russian families) and nationalities (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, baptized Tatars, Moldavians, Georgians, Greeks). The academy taught ancient languages ​​(Greek and Latin), theology, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, grammar, and other subjects. The Academy played a big role in development and enlightenment at the end of the 17th and the first half of the 18th century. From it in the reign of Peter 1 came the mathematician Magnitsky, later Lomonosov. Subsequently, the academy was moved to the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra.

One of the outstanding figures of that era was Patriarch Nikon - an intelligent, educated, energetic man was elected Patriarch of Moscow in 1652. He passionately set about correcting errors in church books and customs. For this work, he ordered learned monks from Greece and from the Kyiv Academy. When the books were corrected, Patriarch Nikon ordered the new books to be sent to all churches, and the old ones to be taken away and burned. The people were excited, because people believed that it was possible to save a soul only according to old books, according to which their fathers and grandfathers prayed. Most of all, the people were worried about the order to be baptized not with two fingers, to which everyone was accustomed, but with three, as in the Greek church, where the ancient more correct custom was preserved.

The dispute about the correction of books and church ritual reforms carried out by order of the patriarch continued for a very long time. This reform itself and the forceful methods of its implementation led to a split. The schism is a complex socio-religious phenomenon associated with profound changes in the people's consciousness. Under the sign of the struggle for the old faith, everyone who was dissatisfied with the changes in living conditions gathered: the plebeian part of the clergy, who protested against the growth of feudal oppression by the church elite, and part of the church hierarchs, who opposed Nikon's centralization changes; representatives of the boyar aristocracy, dissatisfied with the strengthening of autocracy (princes Khovansky, sisters Sokovnina - boyar Morozova and princess Urusova, and others); archers, pushed into the background by military formations of a regular type; merchants, frightened by the growth of competition. Members of the royal family also stood for the old faith. At the head of the dissenters was the priest-priest Avvakum, also a powerful and hot-tempered man. The famous Solovetsky Monastery also stood up in defense of the old faith, and only after a seven-year siege (1668-1676) was the monastery taken by the Moscow army. The Old Believers, on the orders of the patriarch, were persecuted, imprisoned, punished. As for the peasantry, for the most part, they associated the deterioration of their position with the retreat from "ancient piety." So the movement of the Old Believers was quite massive. The leaders of the Old Believers, Archpriest Avvakum and his associates were exiled to Pustoozersk (lower reaches of the Pechora) and spent 14 years in an earthen prison, after which they were burned alive. Since then, the Old Believers often subjected themselves to "baptism of fire" - self-immolation in response to the arrival of "Nikon - the Antichrist" into the world.

The ideology of the schism included a complex range of ideas and demands, from the preaching of national isolation and hostility to secular knowledge, to the rejection of the serfdom with its inherent enslavement of the individual and the encroachment of the state on the spiritual world of man and the struggle for the democratization of the church.

The schism became one of the forms of social protest of the masses, who associated the deterioration of their position with the reform of the church. Thousands of peasants and residents of the settlement, carried away by the passionate sermons of the schismatics, fled to the Pomeranian North, to the Volga region, to the Urals, to Siberia, where they founded Old Believer settlements. Some of them exist to this day.

The need to revise all church rites and bring them into line with Greek liturgical practice was caused, first of all, by the desire to streamline the ritual practice of the Russian church in the face of the growth of religious freethinking and the decline of the authority of the clergy. Rapprochement with the Greek Church was supposed to raise the prestige Russian state in the Orthodox East, discrepancies in Russian and Greek church books sometimes led to real scandals. However, it would be wrong to believe that the conflict arose because of ritual issues - unanimity or polyphony, two-fingered or three-fingered, etc.

Behind the phenomenon of church schism lies a deep historical and cultural meaning. The schismatics experienced the decline of Ancient Rus' as a national and personal catastrophe, they did not understand why the old way of life was badly consecrated by time, what was the need for a radical break in the life of a vast country that had honorably emerged from the trials of turmoil and was growing stronger year by year. Behind the controversy, limited by narrow limits, the outlines of the main dispute of the era of that time, the dispute about historical correctness, were outlined. One side insisted on insignificance, the other - on greatness, on the "truth" of antiquity.

The split was a great tragedy for the people. He instilled a mood of expectation of the Antichrist. People fled to the forests, mountains and deserts, schismatic monasteries formed in the forests. At the same time, the tragedy entailed an extraordinary upsurge, firmness, sacrifice, readiness to endure everything for faith and conviction.

In numerous literature, the schismatics are evaluated as reactionaries, conservatives, fanatics. Such unambiguity is hardly true. For example, in some aspects Archpriest Avvakum turned out to be a greater innovator than his opponents. This concerns, first of all, the theory and practice of the literary language. One should also think about another assessment that appeared in one of the recent works, although the split should not be idealized: probably not everything is so simple with the attitude of the Old Believers to everything new, non-religious. There is no doubt, for Avvakumites, only the “ancient”, primordially national, native things had the status of truth ... And yet, in itself, such an approach to tradition, to the past, does not yet give grounds to talk about the inertia and ignorance of the Old Believers. Having screwed up, it seems to us that in the situation of a sharp break in the established social norms and spiritual and ideological foundations, which marked the entire 17th century, it was the Old Believers, despite their eschatological essence, even fanaticism and worldly detachment, that retained continuity in the development of national identity and culture. This was the indisputable positive beginning of the movement of the split.

Over time, the Old Believer emerged as a special type of Russian person, with a cult of work that is sometimes compared to the Protestant work ethic in the West. And among the Russian industrialists there was a very high proportion of Old Believers. In their social life, the schismatics took as a basis the institution of the Zemstvo with its practice of councils, gatherings, and elective self-government, thus preserving the democratic traditions of the people.

Already in the first half of the 17th century, manufacturing business was born in Russia. In the ancient area of ​​small metallurgy, several Tula-Kashirsky metallurgical ironworks appeared, founded by Russian merchants and enterprising boyars, and ordinary people, for example entrepreneurial activity Tula blacksmith Nikita Antufiev-Demidov led him in the early 18th century to the number of the largest business people in the country. Foreigners noted the originality of trade in the Muscovite state, in the sense that it was carried out in rows, in each one with goods of a certain kind. Such an order was approved by them, since the buyer "from a multitude of homogeneous things, placed together, can very easily choose the best." According to the inventory of 1695, there were 72 rows in Kitai-Gorod, including only rows selling fabrics, there were up to 20 rows. There were rows: fist, mitten, stocking, shoe, ear, icon, etc. Many merchants tried to display their goods in a more convenient place for themselves, for example, at the gate own house However, the government, primarily for fiscal purposes, fought hard against such trade outside the ranks. Hard-to-control street bargaining was also forbidden: “don’t walk along the rows with white fish” with “don’t walk herrings”, with “don’t walk rich rolls”. In 1681, during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich, it was again indicated: "so that people of all ranks do not trade in the indicated places, and from that great sovereign of his treasury there was no needless loss and shortfalls." In practice, these prohibitions were generally not respected: throughout the 17th century, trade outside the ranks continued to develop. According to a foreigner who visited Russia at the end of Alexei Mikhailovich's reign, there were "more trading shops in Moscow than in Amsterdam or in any other principality."

The desire for originality and contentment with inertia developed in Rus' somehow in parallel with a certain desire to imitate someone else's. The influence of Western European education arose in Rus' from the practical needs of the country, which they could not satisfy with their own means. Need forced the government to call foreigners. But, calling on them and even caressing them, the government at the same time jealously protected the purity of national beliefs and life from them. However, acquaintance with foreigners was still a source of "innovation". The superiority of their culture irresistibly influenced our ancestors, and the educational movement manifested itself in Rus' as early as the 16th century. Grozny himself could not but feel the need for education; education is firmly supported by its political opponent, Prince Kurbsky. Boris Godunov seems to us to be a direct friend of European culture. In the 17th century, a lot of military, commercial and industrial foreigners appeared and settled in Moscow, enjoying great trade privileges and enormous economic influence in the country. Muscovites got to know them better and foreign influence thus increased. Never before had Muscovite people approached Western Europeans so closely, had they so often adopted various trifles of everyday life, had they not translated as many foreign books as they did in the 17th century. The well-known facts of that time clearly tell us not only about the practical assistance from foreigners to the Moscow government, but also about the mental cultural influence of the Western people who settled in Moscow on the Moscow environment. This influence, already noticeable under Tsar Alexei, in the middle of the 17th century, of course, was formed gradually, not immediately, and existed before Tsar Alexei, under his father. A typical carrier of alien influences in their early days was Prince Ivan Andreevich Khvorostin (died in 1625), a “heretic” who fell under the influence of Catholicism first, then some extreme sect, and then repented and even tonsured a monk. But this was the first sign of a cultural spring. Moscow not only kept an eye on the customs of Western European life, but in the 17th century began to take an interest in Western literature as well. However, from the point of view of practical needs. In the Posolsky Prikaz, the most educated institution of that time, along with political news from Western newspapers for the sovereign, they translated entire books, for the most part manuals of applied knowledge. The love of reading undoubtedly grew in Russian society in the 17th century - this is evidenced by the abundance of handwritten books that have come down to us from that time, containing both works of Moscow writing of a spiritual and secular nature, and translated works. Noting such facts, the researcher is ready to think that the cultural turning point of the early 18th century and its cultural side was by no means a completely unexpected novelty for our ancestors.

Among the new genres that expressed the growth of self-awareness, dramaturgy occupies a special place. The first theatrical performances took place in 1672 in the court theater of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, where plays were staged in ancient and biblical stories. The founder of Russian dramaturgy was S. Polotsky, whose plays (the comedy The Parable of the Prodigal Son and the tragedy The King of Nebuchadnezzar) raised serious moral, political and philosophical problems.

The king liked the theatrical performances. In the boardwalk theater, ballets and dramas were presented to the king, the plots of which were borrowed from the Bible. These biblical dramas were spiced with rough jokes; So, in Holofernes, a maidservant, seeing Judith's severed head of the Assyrian governor, says: "The poor thing, waking up, will be very surprised that they took away his head." It was, in fact, the first theater school in Russia.

In 1673, staged by N. Lim, the Ballet about Orpheus Eurydice was first presented at the court of Alexei Mikhailovich, which marked the beginning of periodic performances in Russia, the emergence of the Russian ballet theater.

And wandering artists walked around the cities and villages - buffoons, guslyar - songwriters, guides with bears. Puppet shows with the participation of Petrushka were very popular.

The appearance of the Kremlin changed noticeably in the 17th century. The architecture of this time was different from the architecture of previous centuries. The monumental and laconic manner of Russian architects of the 15th-16th centuries was replaced by decorative and painterly style 17th century. The forms of buildings became more complicated, their walls were covered with multi-color ornaments, white stone carvings, brick patterns, and tiles. Not only palaces and rich houses, but also churches often resembled fairy-tale towers. In many ways, the new architecture reflected folk performance about the ideal, heavenly beauty, the harmony of the world. However, the old and new architecture were inextricably linked, because the buildings of the 17th century and previous centuries got along well with each other.

During the intervention at the beginning of the 17th century, the Kremlin suffered greatly. After the liberation of Moscow from the Polish invaders in 1612, they began to restore it. In 1625, a multi-tiered top with a high stone tent covered with tiles rose above the Frolovskaya Strelnitsa - the main entrance to the Kremlin. The tower has acquired a very elegant appearance. Its lower quadrangle completed a belt of arches with a white stone pattern. White-stone statues (blockheads) were placed in the arches, and turrets, pyramids, statues of outlandish animals were placed above the arcade belt. At the corners of the quarter, the gilded weathercocks of the white-stone pyramids shone in the sun. On the lower quarter there was another, two-tiered, but smaller. It had a clock - chimes. The second quadrangle turned into an octagon, which ended with a stone gazebo with keeled arches. The bells of the chimes were placed in the gazebo. The architecture of the new completion of the Frolovskaya Tower combined features of Western European Gothic and Russian patterning. The authors of the tent project were Russian architects Bazhen Ogurtsov and English watchmaker Christopher Golovei. Together with the Kazan Cathedral built on Red Square, the Frolovskaya Tower became a monument to the revival of Russia after terrible years turmoil. In 1658, by decree of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the Frolovskaya Tower was renamed the Spasskaya Tower - an image of the Savior was painted above its gate from the side of Red Square. Other Kremlin towers also received new completions. Tiered tents with platforms for sentinels, tiled roofs, gilded weathervanes above them, have changed appearance Moscow fortress. In the 30s of the 17th century, Bazhen Ogurtsov, Antip Konstantinov, Trifil Sharutin and Larion Ushakov added “very fancy chambers” to the royal palace, called the Terem Palace, a true masterpiece of Russian architecture of the 17th century. The basis for the palace was the earlier buildings. Stepping back from their edge so that a wide bypass terrace (ambulance) turned out, the architects erected the first two floors, and above them, stepping back further, they built the third floor - the Upper Tower, the high roof of which was gilded over time. Together with the heads of the cathedrals, she dazzlingly sparkled in the sun. The palace thus acquired a stepped, tiered silhouette, characteristic of the architecture of that time. A wide staircase led to the chambers of the palace, with a golden lattice, amazing in subtlety and elegance of work. On the first floor of the palace there were service rooms and the royal soap box. The king lived in the second. In the third, Teremka, there was a large hall for the royal children to play; the Boyar Duma sometimes also gathered in it. The interior of the palace was vaulted and richly decorated. Its walls were decorated with carved platbands and portals, ornamental belts, multi-colored tiles. The stairs and porches that surrounded it gave an even more elegant look to the palace. A group of house churches adjoined the palace, topped with a shining array of gilded domes. The whole appearance of the palace created a festive atmosphere. Another Kremlin building corresponded to the picturesque manner of stone patterning in the 17th century - Poteshny Palace, which was built as residential chambers of I.D. Miloslavsky. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the palace was rebuilt and since 1672 it has hosted theatrical performances and other court entertainments - "fun", for which he received the name - "Funny". More discreet look had a long, consisting of a number of chambers with high stairs, the building of Orders - government offices on Ivanovskaya Square. At the same time, a new building appeared on and on Cathedral Square. By order of Patriarch Nikon, new Patriarch's chambers were built behind the Assumption Cathedral with the five-domed Cathedral of the Twelve Apostles. The appearance of the cathedral gravitated towards the architecture of the 16th century. The taste of the customer affected this: Patriarch Nikon did not favor many architectural innovations.

By the end of the 17th century, hundreds of buildings already existed in the Moscow Kremlin. Cathedrals and small churches, palaces and chambers, monasteries and private houses, formed dozens of squares, streets, lanes and dead ends. The Kremlin was also famous for its gardens. Cages hung in the gardens, in which strange birds walked and sang. The remarkable Russian historian N.V. Karamzin called the Moscow Kremlin "a place of great historical memories". Indeed, stepping under the arches of the ancient cathedrals of the Kremlin, admiring the magnificence of its architecture, walking along Ivanovskaya Square, one cannot help but feel the touch of antiquity and give free rein to fantasy. “No,” exclaimed M.Yu. Lermontov, “not the Kremlin, nor its battlements, nor its dark passages, nor its magnificent palaces, it is impossible to describe it: one must see ... one must feel everything that they say to the heart and imagination!...

The rise of civil architecture, which was clearly manifested in the late 15th and early 16th centuries during the construction of the Kremlin Palace, had a worthy continuation in the 17th century. Palaces, administrative buildings, residential buildings, guest yards were built on an unprecedented scale before. Their architectural appearance reflected not only the desire of architects to follow the best traditions of the past, but also the desire to create completely new types of buildings, to develop a new style.

The evolutionary processes that took place in the state system of Russia in the 17th century, the breakdown of the traditional worldview, the noticeably increased interest in the world around us, the craving for "external wisdom" were reflected in the general character of Russian culture. The country's unusually expanded ties with Western Europe, as well as with the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands, also contributed to the changes (especially after the reunification of the left-bank Ukraine and part of Belarus with Russia in the middle of the century) " generic trait» culture and art of this era - "secularization", liberation from the canons. Expanding the subject of images, increasing the proportion of secular, historical plots, the use of Western European engravings as "samples", allowed artists to create with less regard for traditions, to look for new ways in art. However, we must not forget that the golden age of ancient Russian painting is far behind. It was no longer possible to rise to the top again within the framework of the old system. Icon painters found themselves at a crossroads. The beginning of the 17th century was marked by the dominance of two artistic directions inherited from the previous era. One of them was called the "Godunovskaya" school, since most of the famous works of this direction were commissioned by Tsar Boris Godunov and his relatives. The "Godunov" style as a whole is distinguished by its tendency to narrative, overload of the composition with details, corporality and materiality of forms, fascination with architectural forms. At the same time, he is characterized by a certain orientation towards the traditions of the great past, towards the images of the distant Rublevsky-Dionysian time. Color palette works are restrained. In the construction of the form, a large role was assigned to the drawing.

Another direction is usually called the "Stroganov" school. Most of the icons of this style are associated with the orders of the eminent merchant family, the Stroganovs. The Stroganov school is the art of icon miniature. It is no coincidence that her characteristic features are most clearly manifested in works of small size. In the Stroganov icons, with impudence unheard of at that time, the aesthetic principle asserts itself, as if obscuring the cult purpose of the image. The shallow inner content of this or that composition and the lack of richness of the spiritual world of the characters worried the artists, and the beauty of the form in which it was possible to capture all this. Careful, fine writing, craftsmanship of finishing details and sophisticated drawing, virtuoso calligraphy of lines, richness and sophistication of ornamentation, multi-color coloring, the most important part of which was gold and silver - these are the components of the language of the masters of the Stroganov school.

One of the most famous Stroganov artists was Prokopy Chirin. Among his early works is the icon "Nikita the Warrior" (1593). The image of Nikita, which still retains echoes of the lyrical intonations of the 15th century, is already devoid of internal significance. The pose of the war is exquisitely mannered. Thin legs in golden boots are shifted and slightly bent at the knees, which is why the figure barely maintains balance. The head and hands with "thinned" fingers seem too small compared to the massive torso. This is not a warrior-defender, but rather a secular dandy, and the sword in his hands is only an attribute of a festive attire.

Elements of a kind of realism, observed in the painting of the Stroganov school, were developed in the work of the best masters of the second half of the 17th century - the royal icon painters and painters of the Armory. Their recognized head was Simon Ushakov - a man of versatile talents, theorist and practitioner of painting, drawing, and applied art. In 1667, in the treatise “A Word to the Lovers of Icon Painting,” Ushakov outlined views on the tasks of painting that essentially led to a break with the icon painting tradition. A characteristic example of the practical implementation of Ushakov's aesthetic materials in icon painting is his Trinity (1671). The composition of this icon reproduces the famous Rublev "pattern" with its smooth circular rhythms, with an orientation to the plane, despite the distinct spatiality. But Ushakov, unwittingly, destroyed this plane. The depth of perspective has become too tangible, the figures are sharply revealed volume and physicality. With the thoroughness and purity of writing, with emphasized elegance and realism of details, all this evokes a feeling of academic coldness, deadness of the image. An attempt to write as in life turned into lifelessness.

The greatest integrity is marked by those works of Ushakov, in which the main role is assigned to human face. It was here that the artist was able to fully express his understanding of the purpose of art. It is no coincidence, apparently, that Ushakov was so fond of depicting the Savior Not Made by Hands. The large scale of the face of Christ allowed the master to demonstrate how excellently he mastered the technique of light and shade modeling, knew anatomy perfectly, and was able to convey the silkiness of hair and beard, the dullness of the skin, and the expression of the eyes as close to nature as possible. However, the artist, of course, was mistaken, believing that he was able to organically connect the elements of a realistic interpretation of form with the ancient precepts of icon painting.

The 17th century completes more than seven centuries of history of ancient Russian art. From that time on, ancient Russian icon painting ceased to exist as a dominant art system. Old Russian icon painting is a living, priceless heritage that gives artists a constant impetus for creative search. It opened and opens the way for contemporary art, in which much of what was laid down in the spiritual and artistic quest of Russian icon painters is to be embodied.

In the Russian aesthetics of the 17th century, a sharp turning point is taking place. The new aesthetics destroys the traditions established in painting in the name of truth. Scripture stories were used by artists to create simple everyday paintings. In the Yaroslavl Church of Elijah the Prophet, a harvest scene is depicted on the wall. The artists depicted not a biblical legend, but a picture of the usual work of a peasant. Churchmen fought against secularization of painting. Among the painters who carried out the orders of the tsar and the patriarch, the desire to escape from the fettering rules of church icon painting was already clearly defined. What is the reason for the appearance of the first parsun in Rus'. Russian painters were invited to Moldova and Georgia, and Ukrainian and Belarusian masters worked in Greece. Portraiture of this time was the first secular genre. In the 17th century, all the eminent people of the country tried to capture their image in the portrait. The royal icon painters Simon Ushakov, Fyodor Yuryev, Ivan Maksimov painted portraits of Prince B.I. Repnin, steward G.P. Godunov, L.K. Naryshkin and many others. Parsuns, as a purely secular genre, originated at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries, further developed in the second half of the 17th century, the best parsuns were written at the end of the century (portrait of the steward V.F. Lyudkin, uncle and mother of Peter I - L.K. and N.K. Naryshkin). They have already outlined the features of the Russian portrait of the coming century - attention to the inner world of the person being portrayed, about the ethicization of the image, subtle coloring. In just a few decades new genre has come a long way - from semi-iconic parsun to quite realistic images.

The fresco in the 17th century, which experienced its last rise, can only conditionally be attributed to monumental painting. There is almost no correlation of pictorial surfaces with architectural ones, the images are crushed, permeated with intricate ornamentation, hagiographic compositions have acquired the character genre paintings, replete with folklore elements (works by G. Nikitin and S. Savin with an artel, works by D. Plekhanov with an artel).

Realistic aspirations in art gave rise to the formation of a new worldview, but have not yet led to the creation of a single creative method. The bright and controversial Russian art of the 17th century is a major artistic phenomenon that completed the eight-century history of medieval art, and came close to the aesthetics of the new time.

The dawn of Russian social thought in the first quarter of the 17th century is associated with the appearance of a number of narratives, spiritual and secular authors, about the events of the Time of Troubles. The most famous works: "The Tale" by Avraamy Politsin, "Vremenniki" by deacon Ivan Timofeev, "Words" by Prince Ivan Khvorostnin, "The Tale" by Prince Ivan Kaptyarev-Rostovsky. Official versions The events of the Troubles are contained in the “New Chronicler” of 1630, written by order of Patriarch Filaret. The main purpose of this work is to strengthen the position of the new Romanov dynasty. The accusatory direction is "The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, written by himself." Its author, the inspirer of the Old Believers movement, preaches the ideas of ancient piety.

In the 17th century, secular literature became a prominent phenomenon in Russian culture. There was a significant genre differentiation. The transformation of the hagiographical genre culminated in the emergence of a story - hagiography. The best works of this genre were distinguished by everyday realism: "The Tale of Uliania Osorina, Osorin's squads", and others. The growth of literacy attracted provincial nobles, servicemen and townspeople into the circle of readers, who made new demands on literature. The answer to these needs was the appearance of a household story, which, in an entertaining form, referring to everyday life, made an attempt to penetrate the psychology of the heroes, to move away from the medieval pattern that divided the characters into ideal heroes and absolute villains. The main themes of such works are the clash of the young and the older generations, the question of morality, a person with his personal experiences (the story "On grief and misfortune" in the middle of the 17th century; "The story of Savva Grudtsyn", 60 years of the 17th century; "The story of Frol Skobeev" 1680 year). The heroes of these stories, merchants and poor nobles-adventurers, rejected the patriarchal foundations and moral norms of the past. The new ideals were still expressed vaguely. During this period, the literature of the settlement, as well as democratic satire, which ridicules state and church institutions, parodies legal proceedings, church services, holy scripture, clerical red tape. In the satirical story "About Ersh Ershovich" Sturgeon was ridiculed - "a great boyar and governor", a nobleman Leshch, and a rich man Som. Among the townspeople there were already quite a few book lovers who rewrote for themselves the works they loved. Entire handwritten books were obtained, which penetrated into the peasant environment. The literature of the 17th century was slowly freeing itself from medieval traditions. The religious worldview was supplanted by a more realistic vision of reality, providentialism - by the search for patterns of peaceful development. The formation of satirical-everyday and autobiographical genres marked the beginning of fiction proper. New areas of literature appeared - versification and dramaturgy.

For a long time in the Muscovite state, everything was arranged in such a way that the royal treasury grew rich mainly, and those who in one way or another served the treasury and used it; and it is not surprising that foreigners were surprised at the abundance of royal treasures and at the same time noticed the extreme poverty of the people. The appearance of the then capital corresponded to this order of things. A foreigner entering it was struck by the contrast, on the one hand, of the gilded tops of the Kremlin churches and royal towers, and on the other hand, a bunch of chicken huts, townspeople, and the miserable, dirty look of their owners. A Russian person of that time, if he had prosperity, tried to appear poorer than he was, was afraid to put his money into circulation, so that, having become rich, he would not become the subject of denunciations and not be subject to royal disgrace, which was followed by the taking away of his entire fortune “for the sovereign”, not counting his family; therefore, he hid the money somewhere in the monastery or buried it in the ground “about a rainy day”, kept under lock and key in chests his grandfather’s caftans embroidered with gold, sable coats, silver cups, and he himself went around in a dirty shabby sheepskin coat, or a single row of coarse cloth and ate from wooden utensils. Uncertainty in security, constant fear of secret enemies, fear of a thunderstorm, ready to strike him from above at any moment, suppressed in him the desire to improve his life, to elegant surroundings, to proper work, to mental work. The Russian man lived at random, acquired means of subsistence at random; always exposed to the danger of being robbed, deceived, treacherously destroyed, he himself did not hesitate to warn what could happen to him, he also deceived, robbed where he could, profited at the expense of his neighbor, for the sake of the means for his always fragile existence. From this, Russian people differed in home life by untidiness, in work - by laziness, in relations with people - by deceit, deceit and heartlessness.

A nation is, as you know, a historical community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territories, economic life, culture, and certain features of the mental make-up. The nation is self-conscious. This means that in its relation to the world, in its language, the nation has special ways by which it realizes and depicts itself, its memory, its activity. All this is realized in culture. National culture is formed simultaneously with the process of formation of national identity. It gives the culture a distinct national character. The spiritual strength of the nation, national dignity, in general, the ideological and creative potential of the people, mainly depends on how preserved, deeply conscious and felt all the spiritual conquests of past centuries, taken in their heights and depths.

It was in the 17th century that the social stratification of the consumption of culture was clearly expressed. While the peasant population still kept the traditional culture, the upper class was oriented towards the West, adopted customs, imitated the fashions of the European nobility. The unprivileged part of the inhabitants of large cities began to feel more and more clearly the need to create their own art - this is how urban folklore began to take shape. IN. Klyuchevsky on this occasion noted that since the middle of the 17th century on Russian society a “foreign culture rich in experience and knowledge” began to operate, and this Western influence unevenly penetrated into different segments of the population, touching, first of all, its upper circles.

1. "Readings and stories on the history of Russia" S.M. Solovyov "Pravda" 1989.

2. " Full course lectures on Russian history” S.F. Platonov St. Petersburg, 1992.

1668-1684

Late 17th century

Craving for science -

1626-1686

Portrait image of people, from the word "person"

Portraits of Tsars Alexander Mikhailovich and Fyodor Alekseevich, young Tsarevich Peter (GII)

Biographical novels

Speaking of early Russian symbolism, one cannot consider it out of touch with Western European literature. It is significant that Bryusov and Balmont gave a clear preference not to the French symbolists of the end of the century, but to the poets who are usually called their predecessors - Baudelaire, Verlaine and Mallarmé.

One of the creators of the poetry of the big city, imbued with the tragic consciousness of the contradiction between evil reigning in the world and the unattainable ideal of imperishable beauty, Charles Baudelaire influenced the Russian symbolists in many aspects of his work. Thus, there is no doubt a connection between Baudelaire's anti-aestheticism (a sign of protest against philistine benevolence) and the audacity of poetic images in the early Bryusov. Baudelaire's tragedy will be reflected in Bryusov's poetry of the city, and the Baudelaire's theme of excruciating evil in its demonic coloration was also characteristic of Sologub's poetry.

Russian Symbolists picked up from Baudelaire the theory of "correspondences" - hidden, poetically comprehended analogies between mental and natural phenomena, between the real world and the world of the poet's own "I". The poem "Conformity" was perceived by the "senior" symbolists as an aesthetic manifesto of a new literary trend. The theme of “correspondences” is developed in the poems of Sologub (“There are correspondences in everything ...”, 1898), Bryusov (“I am a child, not knowing fear ...”, 1900), Balmont (“Baudelaire”, 1904).

The Symbolists highly valued the poetry of Paul Verlaine. “Before Verdun, there was no symbolism,” Bryusov wrote to P. Pertsov in 1905. Verlaine introduced into poetry the impressionist art of capturing fleeting moments of life, the ability to grasp and convey shades in the change of sensations, impressions and moods and, as it were, capture changing outlines through them outside world. Verlaine transferred dissatisfaction with life and poetic admiration for the beauty of nature into sketch sketches painted with sadness, metaphorically reproducing the “landscape of the soul” of the poet.

The decadent melancholy mood in the spirit of the “end of the century” (“fin de siècle”) was answered by the musicality of the lyrics, the melodic intonation of a naive song or romance, and a “seemingly” incoherent stream of images. In Verlaine's lyrics, he was struck by the extraordinary tangibility of the sound side of the verse, sometimes obscuring the meaning of words - assonances, alliterations and rhymes. The words “music first of all” from Verlaine’s programmatic poem “The Art of Poetry” (1874) received great significance among the Symbolists.

The "landscape of the soul" in the manner of Verlaine is present in many symbolists (Balmont, Bryusov, Annensky). They were also drawn to Verdun by the desire to reproduce the rapid change of impressions. The lesson of poetry thus consisted in the discovery of new poetic forms of knowledge of man and nature, perceived by the Symbolists. However, one should not forget that the introduction to the poetry of Verlaine was already to a certain extent prepared for the Russian symbolists by mastering the poetry of Fet, whom they regarded as the first Russian impressionist. In translations from Verlaine, Bryusov and other symbolists often have poetic images and verbal turns in the spirit of Fet.

Simultaneously with Baudelaire and Verdun, Stephan Mallarme entered the poetry of Russian symbolism. It was mainly Bryusov and Annensky who gravitated toward him. Mallarme attracted Russian poets not so much by the content of his chamber poetry, the feeling of longing, the emptiness of life and loneliness, but by the search for new means of poetic expression. His strict in form, somewhat pathetic poems contain allusions to the hidden in them secret meaning, thanks to which objects of the outside world (for example, a mirror or a fan) lose their material meaning and become symbols of abstract ideas or experiences of the poet. Mallarme mastered the art of hinting, connected with the "obscuration" of the final symbolic meaning poetic images. As a theoretician, he demanded that the poetic impression be created by understatement. This position French poet formed the basis of Bryusov's first theoretical speeches, in which he defines symbolism as the art of allusion.

Russian symbolism has something in common with French in aesthetic rejection of the bourgeois world and philistine complacency, however, anti-bourgeois rebellion manifested itself in Russian poets with greater certainty, which was caused by different historical conditions for the development of Russian literature at the turn of the century.

French symbolism was originally imbued with the spirit of social protest, but later pessimism and disbelief in man prevailed in it; art became an end in itself. Social protest originated in Baudelaire's rebellious Flowers of Evil (1857), a book largely inspired by the revolution of 1848 (more precisely, the July proletarian uprising), but completed after its defeat and therefore bearing a certain decadent coloring. Echoes of the ideological connection with the Paris Commune are contained in the poetic work of Verlaine and Rimbaud, but its tragic defeat, in turn, contributed to their transition to the path of decadence.

Formed as a literary trend in the 80s. French symbolism was already deprived of social protest and evolved in the spirit of strengthening decadent pessimism in it. “French symbolism after the fall of the Paris Commune develops in a downward direction,” states its researcher D. D. Oblomievsky.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983

Thesis

Gromova, Olga Gennadievna

Academic degree:

PhD in Cultural Studies

Place of defense of the dissertation:

Kemerovo

VAK specialty code:

Speciality:

Theory and history of culture

Number of pages:

CHAPTER I THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF INTERACTION OF LANGUAGE AND

CULTURES.

§ 1 LANGUAGE AS A MEANS OF TRANSLATION AND ACCUMULATION OF THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE AND ITS NATIONAL

CHARACTER.

§ 2 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE FORMATION

RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE.

CHAPTER II LINGUISTIC BORROWING AS A MEANS OF INTERACTION OF CULTURES:

ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM.

§ 1 INTERACTION OF CULTURES AS A BASIS

LINGUISTIC BORROWING.

§ 2 ORIGINAL AND BORROWED LEXICAL UNITS IN

LIGHT OF THE THEORY OF LINGUO-CULTUROLOGICAL FIELD.

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) On the topic "Interaction of Russian and Western European cultures during the formation of the Russian literary language: the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries."

Relevance of the topic. At the present stage of development of society, when the whole world is covered by the processes of globalization and the unity of various nations and cultures, and strives for universal dialogue, the issue of mutual influence and interpenetration of language and culture is very acute. This is due to the fact that the language, being a means of transmitting culture, is its “mirror”, and the abundance of language borrowings characteristic of the modern stage raises serious concerns about maintaining the integrity and originality of the national culture. To what extent it is possible to preserve the stability of national languages ​​and cultures under such conditions, and whether the idea of ​​creating some kind of universal dialogue that summarizes all the achievements of civilization is realistic is a question that concerns today not only culturologists and linguists, but also politicians.

In the history of Russia, a similar problem has already arisen during the period of Peter the Great's attempt to Europeanize the country. There is some similarity between the processes that took place two centuries ago and those of today. Such repetition must be due to the similarity of situations that gave rise to changes in society, among which we can single out: first, the change in the political status of Russia in the 18th and 20th centuries; secondly, the strengthening of economic ties with foreign states; thirdly, the expansion of educational and cultural contacts with foreign countries.

Naturally, these processes are not identical, since qualitative changes have taken place over the two centuries. Nevertheless, on the basis of previous experience, some modern problems in cultural studies and linguistics can be solved: studying and understanding them allows us to predict the development of cultural contacts in modern conditions, assess the impact of cultural borrowings on the language of the recipient people, track the mechanisms of penetration of foreign culture and its influence on Russians on a mental level. In practice, with the help of such studies, the question can be resolved whether the processes of borrowing should be administratively regulated in order to preserve the purity of the national culture, or whether the culture reflected in the language is capable of self-regulation, based on accumulated experience and cultural traditions.

In the context of globalization, questions arise sharply about the self-identification of cultures, about how to preserve national identity and not reduce the achievements of individual cultures to a single universally leveling monoculture. The key to solving them is the study of the mental mechanisms reflected in the language of the nation, as well as the study of the nature of the formation of a national character, the degree of its stability, which can be traced in linguistic transformations, since our ideas about the world around us are largely expressed by linguistic means.

Based on the fact that history tends to repeat itself, a description of the cultural and linguistic picture that developed in the Petrine period will help to understand the further development of the situation in modern conditions.

degree of development. The research topic required an appeal to the fundamental works of foreign and domestic scientists, which most fully reflect modern approaches to the study of language borrowing. The problem of foreign borrowing, which became the object of research at the end of the 19th century, has been thoroughly studied in linguistics. Foreign borrowings were considered in terms of their origin, degree of development, scope of use and stylistic coloring, reasons for borrowing. U. Weinreich, B. Gavranek studied foreign vocabulary from the standpoint of external and internal reasons for borrowing. In turn, V. V. Veselitsky, Ya. K. Grot, I. I. Ogienko, devoted their works to the study of this layer of vocabulary on the basis of the source and prescription of borrowing. In the same vein, focusing on the "leading influence", E. E. Birzhakova, L. A. Voinova, L. L. Kutina worked. The spheres of borrowing and their functioning in the recipient language were studied by V. V. Vinogradov and F. P. Filin. V. V. Vinogradov, D. S. Lotte, L. P. Yakubinsky dealt with the issues of adapting borrowings according to a phonomorphological feature and issues of stability. The problems of social conditioning of borrowing were studied by R. A. Budagov, Yu. D. Desheriev, A. D. Schweitzer. The works of Yu. S. Sorokin are devoted to the problem of borrowing conditions, and the works of V. M. Aristova are devoted to the stages of the evolution of borrowing.

The problem of linguistic borrowing as a fact of culture has not been sufficiently studied in philosophy and cultural studies. However, these sciences have defined such concepts as " national character», « modal personality”,“ mentality ”, which is associated with the identification of supra-individual national characteristics. It is from the standpoint of these concepts that the borrowings of the late 17th - first third of the 18th centuries are considered. in the present work. For the first time, the German scientist W. von Humboldt spoke about the national character that forms the worldview of the nation, reflected in its language, and thereby creates its unique originality, based on earlier studies of the “spirit of the people” by I. Herder and G. Hegel.

The followers of W. von Humboldt, the Americans E. Sapir and B. Whorf, continuing their research on the relationship between language and thinking, created the theory of linguistic relativity, according to which language determines the nature of cognitive activity and forms a worldview.

For a long time, scientists argued about whether there is any kind of " national character”, uniting ethnic groups and serving as a means of their identification. At the moment, thanks to the work of ethnologists, psychologists, sociologists, culturologists, linguists, the existence of national characteristics is generally recognized, which represent a combination of character traits characteristic only of this people. This is manifested in certain norms and forms of reaction to the surrounding world, as well as in the norms of behavior and activity.

In psychological anthropology, the ideas of the American linguist, ethnologist and anthropologist R. Benedict made a great contribution to the development of this issue. The theory of national character as a set of modal (statistically dominant) features of an adult personality was developed in the works of E. Durkheim, A. Inkels, D. Levinson.

In the studies of mentality, much attention is paid to the problem of the mentality of society. This issue was dealt with by V. Wundt, G. Lebon, B. S. Gershunsky, T. G. Grushevitskaya. The mentality of the society or, according to the definition of G. Le Bon, the soul of the race is " aggregate of general psychological features". In his opinion, the moral and intellectual characteristics, the totality of which expresses the soul of the people, are a synthesis of all its past, the legacy of all its ancestors and the motives of its behavior. This set forms the middle type, which makes it possible to define the people. When applied to a single individual, the features that characterize the "soul" may be insufficient, and sometimes incorrect; but when applied to the majority of individuals of a known people, they give a fairly true picture.

An important layer of literature is research on the topic " Russian national personality", which were based on the works of N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, B. P. Vysheslavtsev, I. A. Ilyin, D. S. Likhachev, P. A. Sorokin, G. P. Fedotov, S L. Frank, "Eurasians". The latest developments in this direction from the standpoint of linguoculturology were carried out by N. D. Arutyunova, V. V. Vorobyov, V. A. Maslova, Yu. S. Stepanov, V. N. Telia.

Despite the fact that the problems of borrowing, the problems of culture associated with borrowing, and the problem of national character are well covered in the literature, the mutual influence of linguistic borrowing and culture from the point of view of the national character of the Russian people, being a little-studied area of ​​cultural studies, required further scientific development based on methods linguoculturology.

The problem of this study is to determine how much the national character traits reflected in the basic language constants are resistant to the influence of foreign borrowings at turning points in history.

The object of research is the relationship and interaction of culture and language in the process of their historical development.

The subject of the study is linguistic borrowings from Western European languages ​​into Russian in various areas of public life in Russia at the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries from the point of view of the Russian national character.

The chronological framework of the work covers the period from the end of the 17th to the first third of the 18th century.

This is due to the fact that foreign contacts brought not only cultural, but also linguistic borrowings, which later influenced the formation of the Russian literary language.

At the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th century, printed sources were mainly official documents. But at this time, the first works of art were born, the authors of which were F. Prokopovich, V. K. Trediakovsky, Prince. P. A. Tolstoy, as well as the first journalistic publications (“ Chimes”). Attempts were made to systematize and describe the grammatical norms of the language (V. Burtsev, M. Grek, M. Smotrytsky). Therefore, we can talk about the beginning of the formation of the Russian literary language at the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries.

The aim of the study is to consider the borrowing of lexical units into the Russian language from Western European languages ​​in the era of the beginning of the formation of the Russian literary language (late 17th - first third of the 18th centuries) from the point of view of the Russian national character, expressed in the basic linguocultures of the recipient language, to determine their role in the system language constants and participation in the paremiological fund and phraseological corpus of the Russian language.

The implementation of this goal requires the consistent solution of the following main tasks:

1. identification of the basic linguistic cultures of the national culture, which are the basis for the preservation of the national character;

2. establishing a relationship between the character of the people and the assimilation of language borrowings in the recipient language;

3. establishing the place of linguistic borrowing in the linguocultural field of the language.

Methodological foundations of the study. The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach to the consideration of humanitarian objects, the main provisions of which are developed in the fundamental works of such authors as W. von Humboldt, E. Sapir, D. S. Likhachev, P. A. Sorokin, N. D. Arutyunova, V. V. Vorobyov, Yu. S. Stepanov, V. N. Teliya.

The study of linguistic borrowings from the point of view of the national character required an interdisciplinary approach to the problem, which, in turn, led to the use of analytical methods that have developed in cultural studies, linguistics, and history.

To recreate the cultural and historical situation of the late XVII - early XVIII the historical method is used, based on the works of V. O. Klyuchevsky, E. V. Anisimov, P. N. Berkov, V. I. Buganov, A. M. Panchenko, L. A. Chernaya.

The work uses the method of linguoculturological field, which allows to get a holistic view of lexical units in the aggregate of their linguistic and extralinguistic content. When describing the relationship between language and culture, it was necessary to single out a linguocultureme - an inter-level unit that is a symbiosis of the extralinguistic and linguistic content of the borrowed realia.

The work used the method of continuous sampling from etymological dictionary M. Fasmer, with the help of which a corpus of words corresponding to a given periodization was selected. Thanks to this method, lexical units were identified that correspond to the objectives of this study.

Using the method of analysis of dictionary definitions, the place of borrowed foreign-language lexical units in linguocultural fields is determined.

The scientific novelty of the research is as follows:

1. The analysis and cultural interpretation of the conceptual series was carried out: “culture”, “language”, “ national character"," mentality ".

2. For the first time, the methods of linguoculturology are applied to the consideration of the historical linguistic material of the Petrine era (borrowings from the end of the 17th - the first third of the 18th centuries).

3. Linguistic cultures that are essentially significant for the Russian national character are singled out: faith, fate, community, power.

4. The analysis of linguistic borrowing was carried out from the standpoint of the qualitative features of the Russian national character, such as catholicity, the desire for freedom and independence in an organic combination with the desire for a strong autocratic state, spirituality as the search for the Absolute, dual faith.

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. Linguocultureme as the core of the linguoculturological field is of great importance in the comprehensive study of culture in conjunction with language, as it reflects not only linguistic, but also extralinguistic processes, phenomena, cultural and historical features, which allows us to explore the national character in particular and the culture of the people as a whole by the method of highlighting culture-specific linguoculturological fields.

2. Features of Orthodox thinking man XVII- XVIII centuries. are reflected in a specific relation to socio-cultural aspects, such as power, law, society, which limited the influence of Western borrowings on the Russian language and culture in general.

3. cultural systems have a relative stability: linguistic borrowings occupy a peripheral place in the linguistic and cultural fields that reflect the mentality of the people, which does not lead to a significant change in the archetypes of the national character.

4. Borrowings appear in the recipient language as idioms, however, borrowed words are not included in the paremiological fund of the language, which indicates their limited influence on the stereotypes of popular consciousness.

The theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that it systematizes and generalizes the conceptual apparatus of cultural linguistics and, thus, cultural studies in general; demonstrates the effectiveness of the linguoculturological field method for the study of national culture and the language that serves it; a significant contribution is made to the development of a comprehensive study of the culture of the Russian people by involving the conceptual apparatus of history, ethnography, cultural studies, philosophy, and linguistics.

The practical significance of the study.

This work can serve as a source of information of a regional nature for expanding knowledge in the process of studying the culture of Russia, as well as a manual on intercultural communication that explains the cultural characteristics of the Russian people. It is possible to use it in the practice and theory of translation for a more adequate choice of lexical units in the transmission of culturally specific words. Also, the results of the study can be used in the university training course "Culturology". The study may be of interest to a wide range of humanitarian specialists.

Approbation of work. The main results of the study were presented in the form of reports and reports at scientific conferences: international (“Language and Culture”, Tomsk, 2003), all-Russian (“ Science and education”, Belovo, 2003), regional (“I Scientific Conference of Postgraduate Students and Applicants of KemGAKI”, Kemerovo, 2002), “ Methodology and methods of humanitarian and social research", Kemerovo, 2003).

The dissertation was discussed in full at the Department of Cultural Studies and Art History of the KemGAKI.

Research structure: The thesis consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and an appendix.

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Theory and history of culture", Gromova, Olga Gennadievna

Studies of the question of why, with all the abundance of borrowings that are characteristic of critical historical periods, including those that fell on the era of reforms carried out by Peter the Great, only a small part of them is assimilated into the language, showed a close relationship between the national character and the language of the nation. According to the definitions given by domestic and Western linguists and culturologists, the language is an expression of the national mentality, and, consequently, of the national culture as a certain vision. By now, scientists have come to the conclusion that there is “ on a national character” (or mentality), which is a peculiar combination of national and national characteristics characteristic of only one people, manifested as certain norms and forms of reaction to the world around them, as well as norms of behavior and activity. Life, specific historical situations, traditions form a certain cultural halo, thanks to which we distinguish people's belonging to different nations. Language manifests ethnic self-consciousness, that is, the people's idea of ​​themselves. Despite the fact that the national character of an ethnos is made up of the mentality of individuals, representatives of this ethnos, there is a certain “image of us” that is not reduced to the sum of individual consciousnesses. It is presented in literature, myths, legends, works of art, in the media and is a means of self-determination of an ethnos. unit of the linguistic and extralinguistic content plan. Linguocultureme as the core of lingocultural folo- 1 4 8 -

The logical field is of great importance in the complex development of language in conjunction with culture, as it reflects not only linguistic, but also extralinguistic processes, phenomena, cultural and historical features, which allows us to explore the national character in particular and the culture of the people as a whole by the method identification of culture-specific linguo-culturological fields. Linguistic cultures that have a common invariant meaning in a certain cultural sphere form a linguo-culturological field. A borrowed lexical unit, once in such a field, is modified according to its requirements (semantics, synonymy / antonymy relations, stylistic coloring), at the same time it introduces elements of an “alien” picture of the world. Studies have shown that lexical borrowings that have entered the basic linguoculturological field occupy a peripheral place in it (for example, fate - fortune; freedom - revolution) and are not reflected in the paremiological fund of the language, which is a reflection of the way of life, the moral and ethical code , the historically accumulated experience of a given people, regardless of the prescription of borrowing. However, borrowings tend to be reflected in the recipient language as idioms, which indicates their rootedness both in the language and in the minds of the people, due to the fact that they become the spokesmen for certain reotypes and cultural attitudes that have become part of the life of the people. It can be said that borrowing does not destroy the archetypes of culture and only as a result of a systematic unidirectional impact can it affect the character of the people. This is confirmed by the fact that borrowing, regardless of age, is not reflected in the proverbs and sayings of a given people, which are a kind of mirror of the indigenous way of life of the nation. Borrowed words expressing concepts corresponding to the national character of the people, the basis of which is

Russian Orthodoxy as a special syncretic form of pagan beliefs and Christianity. The most important dominants of the Russian national character are: religiosity, catholicity, universal responsiveness, the desire for higher forms of experience, the polarization of the soul, which is confirmed by the analysis of these frequency dictionaries as the most frequent words used in the Russian language. Culture is a dynamic phenomenon, but connected with a system of stereotypes (national character) of the people. Hence, borrowing is not a mechanical copying of someone else's vocabulary. In the recipient language, the borrowed word undergoes a transformation of meaning, a confusion of the hierarchy of meanings, a change in the shades of the meaning of the word. The most significant value orientations nations form vast semantic fields according to " the law of synonymous attraction”, involving, among other things, foreign borrowings to differentiate meanings from shades of meaning. For Russian national culture, significant constants around which linguoculturological fields are formed, which also include borrowed lexical units, are the linguoculturemes “soul, faith, freedom, power, fate.” The fundamental difference in the “roots” of Western European and Russian cultures is and one of the main ones is the religious difference - it limited the influence of Western borrowings on the Russian language and culture in general. In any language, including Russian, there are language constants, basic concepts that determine the originality and uniqueness of the national culture (for example, Orthodoxy, spirituality). The peculiarities of Orthodox thinking are reflected not only in the fact that all the basic concepts (faith, Orthodoxy, God) have a Slavic etymology, but also in the specificity of attitudes towards socio-cultural aspects, such as power, law, society.A. Ya. Gurevich considers language and religion to be the main, cementing mentality forces. Therefore, the key to preserving the national mentality is

the inviolability of religious traditions and those basic linguocultures that express them. The duality, antinomy of Russian culture is manifested in the totality of two cultures of which, according to szpgi, it consists: one - folk, natural-pagan remains practically unchanged in its moral ethical values, the other - external - reflects scientific and technological progress, a change in the socio-political situation by replenishing the vocabulary of the language with foreign borrowings. The results of the work showed that the national character of the people, or, in other words, their cultural mental attitudes, is the in general, and to a certain extent the language of the people. In the sense that it does not allow borrowings to destroy the linguoculturological constants of the nation, assigning them peripheral positions in consciousness and language.

List of references for dissertation research candidate of cultural studies Gromova, Olga Gennadievna, 2004

1. Alekseev A. A. On the issue of social differentiation of the Russian language of the XVIII century. pp. 22-44 // Language and society. Reflection of social processes in vocabulary. Interuniversity. scientific collection: Sarat Publishing House. un-ta, 1986.

2. Alpatov M. A. Russian historical thought and Western Europe (XVIII - first half of the XIX century). M.: Nauka, 1985. - 270 p.

3. Anisimov E. V. Time of Peter's reforms. JI.: Lenizdat, 1989. - 496 e., ill.

4. Aristova V. M. English-Russian language contacts (anglicisms in Russian): Monograph. L .: Publishing house Leningrad. un-ta, 1978 - 150 p.

5. Arutyunov S. A. Peoples and cultures: development and interaction. M.: Nauka, 1989.-247 p.

6. Arutyunova N. D. Language and the human world. 2nd ed., rev. - M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1999. -1 - XV, 896 p.

7. Arutyunyan Yu. V. et al. Ethnosociology: Textbook for universities / Yu. V. Arutyunyan, L. M. Drobizheva, A. A. Susokolov. M.: Aspect Press, 1998. -271 p. - (Program " Higher education»)

8. Askoldov A. S. Concept and word.//Russian literature. From the theory of literature to the structure of the text. Anthology. Ed. prof. V. P. Neroznaka. -M.: Academia, 1997. S. 267 - 279.

9. Belinsky V. G. A look at Russian literature. M.: Sovremennik, 1988. - 653 p. - 1521 Z. Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. The main problems of the Russian thoughts XIX century at the beginning of the 20th century. - M.: CJSC "Svarog and K", 1997. - 541 p.

10. Berdyaev N. The fate of Russia. - M.: Soviet writer, 1990. - 346 p.

11. Berkov P. M. Problems of historical development of literatures. L.: Artist. liters, 1981 -495 p.

12. Bibler V. S. From science teaching to the logic of culture: Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - 413 p.

13. Birzhakova E. E., Voinova L. A., Kutina L. L. Essays on the historical lexicology of the Russian language of the XVIII century. (Language contacts and borrowings). Leningrad: Nauka, Leningrad, otd., 1972. - 431 p.

14. Bitsilli P. M. Nation and language. //Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and yaz. 1992. - v. 51. - No. 5. - S. 72-84.

15. Bock FK The structure of society and the structure of the language.//3arubezhnaya linguistics. I: Per from English. /Total ed. V. A. Zvegintsev, N. S. Chemodanova. M.: Ed. Progress group, 1999. - S. 115 - 129.

16. Bondarenko S. V. The place of foreign vocabulary in the Russian cultural space.// Culturology in theoretical and applied dimensions: Proceedings of scientific and practical. Seminar / Ed. G. N. Minenko. Kemerovo; M., 2001. - S. 72-76.

17. Bromstein G. I. Anti-clerical poetry of Lomonosov.// XVIII century. Collection. Issue. 3. M.-L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. - S. 65 - 91.

18. Brutyan G. A. Sapir Whorf's hypothesis. - Yerevan: Luys, 1968 - 66 p.

19. Buganov V. I. The world of history: Russia in XVII century. M .: Young Guard, 1989-318, ill.

20. Budagov R. A. Philosophy of culture. -M.: Thought, 1980 304 p.

21. Bulgakov S. N. Works on sociology and theology: In 2 vols. T. 2. M .: Nauka, 1997. - 825 p. (Series "Sociological Heritage").

22. Buslaev F. O. Literature: Research; Articles/ Comp., entry. st., note. E. Afanasiev. M.: Artist. lit., 1990. - 512 p.

23. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism.//Foreign linguistics. III: Translated from English, German, French. /Total ed. V. Yu. Rozentsveig, V. A. Zvegintseva, V. Y. Gorodetsky. M.: Ed. Progress group, 1999. - S. 7 - 43.

24. Weinreich U. Language contacts. Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1979. - 263 p.

25. Vasiliev S. A. Philosophical analysis of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. - Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1974 134 p.

26. Vezhbitskaya A. Understanding cultures through keywords / TRANS. from English. I. D. Shmeleva. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2001. - 288 p. -(Language. Semiotics. Culture. Small series).

27. Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition: Per. from English. Rep. ed. M. A. Krongauz, entry. Art. E. V. Paducheva. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 1997. 416 p.

28. Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. Language and culture: Linguistic and regional theory of the word. M .: Russian language, 1980. -320 e., ill.

29. Veselitsky V. V. Abstract vocabulary in Russian literary XVIII early XIX century. - M.: Nauka, 1972. - 319 p.

30. Vinogradov VV Lexicology and lexicography: Izb. works. M.: Nauka, 1977.-310 p.

31. Vinogradov VV Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the XVII XIX centuries. - M.: graduate School, 1982 - 528 p.

32. Vorobyov VV Linguistics (theory and methods): Monograph. -M.: Publishing House, RUDN, 1997 331 p.

33. Wundt V. Problems of the psychology of peoples. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 160 p.

34. Vysheslavtsev B. P. Ethics of the transformed Eros / Entry. Art., comp. and comments. V. V. Salova. M.: Respublika, 1994. - 368. (Library of Ethical Thought)

35. Gavranek B. To the problems of mixing languages.//Foreign linguistics. III: Translated from English, German, French. /Total ed. V. Yu. Rozentsveyga, V. A. Zvegintsev, V. Y. Gorodetsky. -M.: Ed. Progress group, 1999. S. 56 - 74.

36. Gak VG Comparative lexicology. (On the basis of French and Russian languages). -M.: International relations, 1977. 264 p.

37. Galushko T. G. Dialogue of cultures as a methodological basis for intercultural communication // World of language and intercultural communication, Barnaul, 2001.-p. 56-59.

38. Hegel G. V. F. System of Sciences. 4.1. Phenomenology of spirit / Per. G. Shpet. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. - 441 p.

39. Hegel G. V. F. Works. T. 3. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Part 3 Philosophy of spirit / Per. B. A. Fokhta. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of Philosophy, 1956. - 371 p.

40. Georgieva T.S. History of Russian culture: history and modernity. Proc. allowance. Moscow: Yurayt, 1998 - 576 p.

41. Herder I. G. Selected works. M.-L.: State. Publishing House of Artists. literature, 1959.-389 p.

42. Gershunsky B. S. Russia and the USA on the Threshold of the Third Millennium: An Expert Study of the Russian and American Mentality. -M.: Flinta, 1999. 604 p.

43. Gorshkov A. I. History of the Russian literary language. Moscow: Higher school, 1969 - 366 p.

44. Grushevitskaya T. G., Popkov V. D., Sadokhin A. P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: Textbook for universities / Ed. A. P. Sadokhin. M.: UNITI - DANA, 2002. - 352 p.

45. Humboldt V. von Selected works on linguistics M.: Progress, 1984 -395 p.

46. ​​Humboldt W. von Language and philosophy of culture. Moscow: Progress, 1985 - 449 p.

47. Gurevich A. Ya. From the history of mentality to historical synthesis.// Disputes about the main thing: Discussions about the present and future of historical science around the French Annales school. -M.: 1993. S. 16 - 29.

48. Guslyarov E. “ Russian character» in the view of foreigners. // Tatar world. 2002. - No. 5. - S. 11.

49. Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. Moscow: Book, 1991 - 574 p.

50. Demin A.S. Russian literature of the second half of the 17th and early 18th centuries: New artistic ideas about the world, nature, and man. - M.: Nauka, 1977.-285 p.

51. Durkheim E. Individual representation and collective representation.// Sociology. Its subject, methods, purpose / Per. from French, compilation, afterword and notes by A. B. Hoffmann. M.: Kanon, 1995. -S. 208-244.

52. Zhabina E. V. Integration of borrowings in the receptor language system (to the formulation of the problem), pp. 216 - 230 / / World of language and intercultural communication, Barnaul, 2001.

53. Zhivov V. M. Language and culture Russia XVIII century. M.: School " Languages ​​of Russian culture”, 1996. - 591 p. in essays and extracts. 4.1, 2- M .: Progress, 1964 - 465 p.

54. Ilyin I. A. On Orthodoxy and Catholicism.// Collected Works: in 10 volumes. T. 2. Book. 1/ Comp. and comment. Yu. T. Foxes. M.: Russian book, 1993. - S. 383-395.

55. Ilyin I. A. About Russia. M.: Studio "TRITE" " Russian Archive", 1991 -32 p.

56. The origins of Russian fiction. (The emergence of plot narrative genres in ancient Russian literature) / Responsible. ed. Ya. S. Lurie. L.: Nauka, Leningrad, otd., 1970. - 594 p.

57. History of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the late 17th and early 19th centuries. /Answer. ed. F. P. Filin. - M.: Nauka, 1981. - 372 p.

58. History of Russian translated fiction: Ancient Rus'. XVIII century. / Ed. Y. Levina. T. 1. Prose. SPb., 1995. - 314 p.

59. Karamzin H. M. About love for the fatherland and national pride. / / Selected works: In 2 vols. T. 2. M-JL: Publishing house “Khudozh. literature”, 1964. S. 280 - 287.

60. Klyuchevsky V. O. On Russian history: Collection. / Comp., author. foreword and note. V. V. Artemov; Ed. V. I. Butanova - M.: Enlightenment, 1993 -576 p.

61. Kolesov VV Old Russian literary language. L .: Publishing house Leningrad. un-ta, 1989.-296 p.

62. Kolesov VV The world of man in the word of Ancient Rus'. L .: Publishing house Leningrad. un-ta, 1986. -312 p.

63. Kolshansky GV Objective picture of the world in knowledge and language. Moscow: Nauka, 1990 - 108 p.

64. Kondakov IV On the mentality of Russian culture //Civilization and culture. Issue. 1. Russia and the East: civilizational relations. M.: Institute of Oriental Studies, 1994. - 410 p.

65. Kopelev L. 3. Aliens.//Odysseus. Man in history. 1993. The image of the "other" in culture. M.: Nauka, 1994. - 336 p. - S. 8 - 18.

66. Kostomarov VG Linguistic taste of the era. From observations on the speech practice of the mass media. Third edition, rev. and additional St. Petersburg: "Zlatoust", 1999.- 320 p. (Language and time. Issue 1).

67. Koshman A. L. Approaches to the study of the national idea in modern Western sociology.// Vestnik Mosk. University. Sociology and political science. -2002, No. 3.-S. 147-157.

68. Krysin L.P. Foreign words in modern Russian. Moscow: Nauka, 1968-208 p.

69. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century. / / Russian speech. - 2000. - No. 1 - P. 28-40.

70. Lebon G. Psychology of crowds. / / Psychology of crowds - M .: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Publishing House "KSP +", 1999. P. 15 - 254.

71. Likhachev D.S. Notes on Russian. Ed. second, add. M.: Soviet Russia, 1984. - 64 p.

72. Likhachev D. S. Conceptosphere of the Russian language.//Russian literature. From the theory of literature to the structure of the text. Anthology. Ed. prof. V. P. Neroznaka. M.: Academia, 1997. - S. 280 - 287.

73. Lomonosov M. V. Proceedings in Philology. T. 7.// complete collection compositions. M.-L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1952.

74. Lossky N. O. Terms of absolute goodness: Fundamentals of ethics; Character of the Russian people. M.: Politizdat, 1991. - 368 p. - (B-ka ethical thought).

75. Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture: Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX century) - St. Petersburg: Art - St. Petersburg, 1996. - 399 p. -5 l. ill.

76. Lotman Yu. M., Uspensky B. A. Towards a semiotic typology of Russian culture of the 18th century. T. 4. // From the history of Russian culture: In 5 volumes. M .: School " Languages ​​of Russian culture", 1996. - 624 p.

77. Lotte D. S. Issues of borrowing and ordering foreign terms and term elements. -M.: Nauka, 1982. 148 p.

78. Makovsky M. M. Comparative dictionary of mythological symbols in Indo-European languages: The image of the world and the worlds of images. M.: Humanit. ed. center VLADOS, 1996. - 416 e.: ill.

79. Martynova A. N. Wisdom and beauty./LTredisl. to Sat. “Proverbs. Sayings. Puzzles". -M.: Sovremennik, 1986.-S. 6-17.

80. MaslovaV. A. Cultural Linguistics: Proc. allowance for students. higher textbook establishments. M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2001 - 208 p.

81. Mechkovskaya N. B. Social Linguistics. Moscow: Nauka, 1996 - 206 p.

82. Milov L.V. Natural and climatic factor and the mentality of the Russian peasantry.//Mentality and agrarian development of Russia (XIX XX centuries) Proceedings of the international conference. - M.: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). - 1996. - S. 40 - 56.

83. Molchanov N. N. Diplomacy of Peter the Great. 3rd ed. - M.: International relations, 1990 - 448 p.

84. Mylnikov A. S. Painting Slavic world: a view from Eastern Europe: Ethnogenetic legends, conjectures, proto-hypotheses of the 16th - early 18th centuries. - St. Petersburg: Petersburg Oriental Studies, 2000: 2nd ed. - 320 s.

85. Nikiforov L. A. Russia in the system of European powers in the first quarter of the 17th century. // Russia during the reforms of Peter I: Sat. senior / N. I. Pavlenko (editor-in-chief), L. A. Nikiforov, M. Ya. Volkov. -M.: Nauka, 1973, 383 p.

86. Nikolaev S. I. From the literary aesthetics of the Petrine era.// XVIII century. Sat. 18./ Ans. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Science, 1993. - S. 218 - 230.

87. Novikova M. Outcasts.// New World. 1994. - No. 1. - S. 226 - 239.

88. New testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Kemerovo: Kemerovo, book publishing house, 1990. - 382 p.

89. Pavilionis R. I. The problem of meaning. M.: Thought, 1983 - 286 p.

90. Panchenko A. M. Russian history and culture: Works different years. St. Petersburg: Yuna, 1999 - 520 p. 97. Panchenko A. M. Russian culture on the eve of Peter's reforms / Ed. ed. D. S. Likhachev. Leningrad: Nauka, Leningrad, otd., 1984. -204 p.

91. Panchenko A. M. Church reform and culture of the Petrine era. // XVIII century: Sat. articles No. 17 St. Petersburg: Nauka, St. Petersburg department, 1991. - 304 p.

92. Paul G. Principles of the history of language. Per. with him. ed. A. A. Kholodovich. Intro. Art. S. D. Katsnelson. M.: Izd-vo inostr. literature, 1960. - 500 p.

93. Portnov A. N. Language and consciousness: the main paradigms of the study of the problem in philosophy XIX XX centuries - Ivanovo, 1994. - 367 p.-159101. Potebnya A. A. Word and myth. M.: Pravda Publishing House, 1989. - 622 p.

94. Pryadko S. D. Language and culture: the cultural component of meaning in the linguo-cultural vocabulary of the Australian variant in English: Autoref. dis. PhD phil. Sciences. Moscow: Moscow state university them. M. V. Lomonosov, 1999. - 25 p.

95. Romodonovskaya EK About changes in the genre system during the transition from ancient Russian traditions to modern literature. // XVIII century. Sat. 21./ Rep. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Science, 1999. - S. 14 - 22.

96. Savitsky P. N. Eurasianism. / / World of Russia Eurasia: Anthology / Comp.: L. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. -M.: Higher school, 1995. - 339 p. - (From the history of national spirituality).

97. Sapir E. Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M .: Publishing group "Progress" "Univers", 1993 - 655 p.

98. Sergeev SK Transmission of socio-cultural experience (to the formulation of the problem)// Culture and society: the emergence of a new paradigm. Abstracts of reports and communications Vseros. scientific Conf., Part 1 Kemerovo, 1995. - S. 217-221.

99. Serebryakova Yu. A. Dialogue of cultures in the modern world.// Culture and society: the emergence of a new paradigm. Abstracts of reports and communications Vseros. scientific conf. Part 1. Kemerovo, 1995. - S. 16 - 17

100. Silnitsky GG Russia in search of meaning. 4.1. Russia between past and future. Smolensk, 2001. - 294 p.

101. Sitnikova D. L. Culture as a dynamic system.// Definitions of culture: Sat. works of participants of the All-Russian seminar of young scientists. Tomsk: Publishing House Vol. un-ta, 1998 - Issue. 3. - 210 p.

102. Stennik Yu. V. Controversy about the national character in the journals of the 1760s -1780s.// XVIII century. Sat. 22/ Rev. ed. N. D. Kochetkova. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2002.-p. 85-96.

103. Stepanov A. V. History of the Russian literary language. M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, ed. 4th, rev. and additional, 1968. - 70 p.

104. Stepanov Yu. S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian culture: Izd. 2nd, rev. and additional M.: Academic Project, 2001. - 990 p.

105. Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication: (Textbook) M.: Slovo / Slovo, 2000. - 624 p.

106. Tuev V.V. English club phenomenon. Moscow: Moscow State University culture, 1997 - 240s.

107. Uspensky B. A. Selected works, volume I. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture, 2nd ed., corrected. and additional M.: School "Languages ​​of Russian culture", 1996 - 608 p.

108. Ustyugov N.V., Chaev N.S. Russian Church in the 17th century. // Russian state in the XVII century. New phenomena in socio-economic, political and cultural life. Sat. Art. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1961.-S. 295-329.

109. Florovsky GV On non-historical peoples. (Country of fathers and children) // World of Russia Eurasia. Anthology./ Comp. J.I. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. - M.: Higher School, 1995 - 339 p. - (From the history of national spirituality).

110. Frank C. JI. Russian worldview.// Frank S. JI. spiritual foundations of society. M.: Respublika, 1992. - S. 471 - 500.

111. Khoroshkevich A. JI. From the history of Russian-German trade and cultural relations at the beginning of the 17th century. (to the edition of the dictionary by Tonny Fenne) // International connections Russia in the 17th-18th centuries Economy, politics, culture. Sat. Art. - M.: Nauka, 1966. - S. 35 - 57.

112. Khotinets V. Yu. Ethnic identity. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2000. - 240 p.

113. Black JI. A. Russian culture of the transitional period from the Middle Ages to the New Age. Moscow: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1999 - 288 e., ill.

114. Chinakova JI. I. To the question of the mentality of the Russian people. //Socis. -2000.-№7,-S. 138-140.

115. Chuchin-Rusov A. E. Convergence of cultures. M.: IChP "Publishing House Master", 1997 - 40 p.

116. Shaposhnikov V. N. Foreign words in modern Russian life. //Russian life. -1997. No. 3. - S. 38 - 42.

117. Shakhmatov A. A. Collection of articles and materials / Ed. Academician S.P. Obnorsky. M.-JL: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1947. - 474 p.

118. Schweitzer AD Some aspects of the problem of "language and culture" in the coverage of foreign linguists and sociologists. // National language and national culture / Yu. D. Desheriev. -M.: Nauka, 1978.

119. Shpet GG Introduction to ethnic psychology.// Shpet GG Works. -M.: Pravda Publishing House, 1989. S. 143-161.

120. Shulyndin B. P. Russian mentality in scenarios for change. //Socis. 1999.-№12.-S. 50-53.

121. Yakubinsky JI. P. A few remarks on vocabulary borrowing.// Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986. -S. 59-71.

122. Bauer, Raymond; Inkels, Alex; Kluckhohn, Clyde/ How the Soviet System works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1956. P. 178.

123. Benedict R. Culture & Personality// Preceding of an Interdisciplinary & Conference Held Under Auspice of the Wiking Fund. New York, 1943. - P. 139.

124. Ihanus J. The jretical and Methdological Problems in Studying National Character. // Dialogue & Universalism, Vol. 9, Issue 11/12, 1999. P. 67-73.

125. Inkels A., Levenson D. J. National Character: The Study of Modal personality & Sociocultural Systems// Lindzey C., Aronson E. (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology. Massachusetts (Calif.); London; Ontario, 1969. - v. iv. -P. 428.

126. Klukhohn, Clyde. Culture & Behavior. New York: Free Press of Glecoe, 1961.-P. 94

127. Redfield R. The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of a Human Whole. Uppsala & Stockholm, 1955. - P. 106.

128. Veenhoven Ruut. Are the Russians as Unhappy as They Say They Are? // Journal of Happiness Studies 2, 2001. P. Ill - 136. LIST OF ARTISTIC SOURCES

129. BH = Der Brockhause in einem Band. 6., vollständig überarbeitete undaktualisierte Aufgabe./ Red. Bearb.: Helmut Kahnt., Leipzig; Mahnheim: Brockhaus, 1994. - 1118 s.

130. BPRS = Gessen D., Stypula R. Large Polish Russian Dictionary: In 2 vol.: Ok. 80,000 words. 3rd ed., rev. and additional -M.: Rus. lang., 1988 -794 p.

131. KS = Culturology. XX century. Dictionary. - St. Petersburg: University book, 1997.-640 p.

132. EC = Culturology. 20th century Encyclopedia: In 2 volumes. St. Petersburg: University book; Aletheya LLC, 1998.

133. LES = Literary encyclopedic dictionary / Under the general. ed. V. M. Kozhevnikov, P. A. Nikolaev. -M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1987, 752 p.

134. NRS = Rymashevskaya E. L. German Russian Dictionary. - M.: FirmaNIK, 1993. 832 p.

135. NFRS = Gak V. G., Ganshina K. A. New French Russian Dictionary: Ok. 70,000 words, 200,000 trans. -M.: Rus. yaz., 1993 1149 p.

136. PPP = Proverbs. Sayings. Riddles. / Comp., author of the preface. icomment. A. N. Martynova, V. V. Mitrofanova. M.: Sovremennik, 1986. - 512 p. - (Classical library "Contemporary").

137. СЖВЯ = Dal Vladimir. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language: In 4 volumes. M .: Terra, 1994. - 800 p.

138. SIS = Modern vocabulary foreign words: ok. 20,000 words. St. Petersburg: Duet, 1994-752 p.

139. SRY = Ozhegov S. I. Dictionary of the Russian language: Ok. 57 LLC words / Under the editorship of Corr. Academy of Sciences of the USSR N. Yu. Shvedova. 18th ed., stereotype. - M.: Rus. yaz., 1986. - 797 p.

140. SSAYA = Dictionary of modern English: In 2 volumes. M: Rus. yaz., 1992.

141. SYAP = Dictionary of Pushkin's language: in 4 volumes / Responsible. ed. acad. USSR Academy of Sciences V. V. Vinogradov. 2nd ed., add. / Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Rus. lang. them. V. V. Vinogradova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000.

142. FSRYA = Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language: Over 4 OOO Dictionary Entries /L. A. Voinova, V. P. Zhukov, A. I. Molotkov, A. I. Fedorov: Ed. A. I. Molotkova. 4th ed., stereotype. -M.: Rus. yaz., 1986.-543 p.

143. FES = Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: INFRA-M, 1999. 576 p.

144. XP = Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: In 3 volumes / Ed. count S.S. Averintsev and others. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1993.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms.
There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Literary criticism 189

INTERACTION OF RUSSIAN AND WESTERN EUROPEAN LITERATURES

LATE XVIII-EARLY XIX CENTURIES

I.N. Nikitin

The article highlights the main aspects of the literary interaction between Russian and Western European literatures on the edge

18-19 centuries. The historical and literary processes that influenced the development of the aesthetics of pre-romanticism in Russian literature are considered.

Key words: Prose, dramaturgy, sentimentalism, pre-romanticism, novel, hero, image Russian literature of the 18th century developed and enriched itself in wide international communication. The period of transition from classicism to romanticism was characterized by great interest in Western European literatures, from which Russian writers took what was necessary and useful for the development of free artistic creativity. The quality of novelty and the depth of originality of national literature largely depended on the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures.

The dramaturgy of W. Shakespeare, the poetry of E. Jung, D. Thomson, T. Gray, the work of L. Stern, J.-J. Russo, I.V. Goethe, I.G.

Herder, F. Schiller.

Of the English prose writers, the most popular was L. Stern, the author of the novels The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy (1759-1762), Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (1768). Stern was interested as the creator of the genre of sentimental travel, as a writer who is able to broadly cover the inner world of a person, who at the same time can show the originality of his inner experiences, when the sublime and the ordinary, the heroic and the vile, the good and the evil are whimsically combined in a person and give vent to his passions. Stern's artistic discoveries were assimilated by European literatures, including Russian literature.

Stern received the greatest popularity in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, when Stern's Beauty or a collection of the best ego pathetic stories and excellent remarks, on life for sensitive hearts was published (M., 1801) and when numerous imitations of Karamzin and Journey appeared Stern (Shalikov, Izmailov, etc.) and as a rebuff to the extremes of sentimentalism - a comedy by A.A. Shakhovsky "New Stern" (1805).

Karamzin was also one of the fans English writer. This manifested itself in his first novel, Letters from a Russian Traveler (1791-1792) and in his autobiographical story, A Knight of Our Time.

German literature had a particularly strong influence on Karamzin. The poetry of Schiller, Goethe, and representatives of Sturm und Drang in originals and translations was well known in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. German writers F.M. Klinger and J. Lenz lived and worked in Russia. Living threads stretched from German pre-romanticism to Russian. Preferring German literature to French, Karamzin began to get acquainted with it back in Moscow, in the late 70s. thanks to the "Friendly Scientific Society" N.I. Novikov.

Much Karamzin learned about the cultural and literary life of Europe through his journey in 1789. in Germany, Switzerland, France and England. Of the German writers of that time, H.M. Wieland ("History of Agathon") and G.E. Lessing ("Emilia Galotti").

Pre-romantic tendencies in Karamzin's worldview and work manifest themselves in the late 80s.

As a pre-romantic, at that time he lost faith in the sentimentalist concepts of world harmony and the "golden age" of mankind. Nature in the writer's worldview turns from sympathetic to humanity into a fatal, sometimes creative, sometimes destructive force; man is only a plaything of terrible elemental forces. The laws of society are no longer in harmony with the laws of nature, they now oppose them. Karamzin tried to show all this in his story “Bornholm Island”, covered with romance of the Ossian North.

(1794). One of the essential features of pre-romanticism is a refined sense of nature and, as a result, his landscape painting” in works of art. Under the influence of Rousseau, Stern, Jung, Thomson and Gray, “landscape painting” also manifests itself in the works of Karamzin (“Letters from a Russian Traveler”, “Spring Feeling”, “To the Nightingale”, “Lily”, “Proteus, or the Disagreement of the Poet”, “ Village"). Unlike the hero of the works of sentimentalism, the hero of the literature of pre-romanticism does not accept the life order of things as it is. This hero is a rebel by nature, heroic and ordinary, good and evil are whimsically combined in him, as in the heroes of Schiller's dramas. A new hero for Russian literature was discovered in the pre-romantic poetry and prose of Karamzin 1789-1793. In the novel Letters of a Russian Traveler, in the stories Poor Liza, Natalya, the Boyar's Daughter, Bornholm Island, Sierra Morena, Yulia, Karamzin significantly expanded the possibilities of Russian literature, turning to the disclosure of the rich spiritual life of the inner the world of man, his "I". By the mid 90s. Karamzin changes his ideological and artistic positions: he moves away from pre-romanticism and turns to sentimentalism.

The influence of Western European literature is also experienced by A.N. Radishchev. During the investigation of him 190 Bulletin of the Bryansk State University. 2016(1), the writer admitted that the creation of Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow was influenced, apart from Herder and Reynal, by Stern in the German translation [Babkin, 1957, 167]. The images of Yorick and the Traveler are related to the humane mood and ardent sympathy for the disadvantaged; the episode of the meeting of the Traveler with the blind singer at the Klin station resembles the episode of the meeting of the Traveler Yorick with the monk Lorenzo. Radishchev argues with Stern, rejects the deistic system of morality of English sentimental writers, which is clearly manifested in the chapter from the "Journey" called "Edrovo".

There are far more differences between Stern's and Radishchev's Travels than similarities. Genre-wise, they are completely different. Radishchev's Journey is closer to satire, a political pamphlet. Stern's laughter, which, according to T. Carlyle, is "sader than tears", did not find a response from A.N. Radishchev.

The influence of Herder's ideas on the literary process in Russia is absolutely obvious. Radishchev was the first to mention Herder in his “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” in the chapter “Torzhok”, Herder also referred to assessments of Russian folk songs and the origins of the Russian character in the chapters “Sofia” and “Zaitsovo”, also opinions on the role of language in society in the chapter "Crosses". The organic assimilation of Herder's ideas by Radishchev is confirmed by all the work of the author of Journey, in which the philosophy of history is inseparable from the theory of the people's revolution. Both Derzhavin and Karamzin, who met with Herder and translated some of his works in 1802-1807, turned to Herder, but by no means agreed with the German thinker in everything.

The creative activity of the classics of German literature, Goethe and Schiller, did not go unnoticed in Russia either. Until 1820, Goethe was best known in Russia as the author of The Sufferings of Young Werther, a typically pre-Romantic work, translated for the first time into Russian in 1787. At the end of the 18th

Early 19th century Werther was often remembered, this work was often quoted, imitated (for example, Radishchev in the chapter "Wedge" of his "Journey", Karamzin in "Poor Liza"). were popular and lyric poetry Goethe.

F. Schiller and his work were known in Russia in the second half of the 1780s. Schiller's dramas The Robbers, The Fiesco Conspiracy, Insidiousness and Love, Mary Stuart, Don Carlos, William Tell played a significant role in the formation of a new "romantic" theater in Russia. Along with other phenomena of pre-romanticism, everything new that Schiller's dramaturgy brought with it was perceived. Schiller was read in Russia.

Consideration of the interaction of Russian literature with European literatures can be continued further. Their influence on Russian literature is undeniable.

The article covers the main aspects of literary interaction of Russian and West European literatures at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. The historico-literary processes which influenced the development of the esthetics of Preromanticism in Russian literature are considered.

Keywords: Prose, dramatic art, Sentimentalism, Preromanticism, novel, hero, image References

1. Berkov P.N. The main questions of the study of Russian enlightenment // The problem of Russian education in literature XVIII century. M., L., 1961. S. 26.

2. History of Russian literature: In 10 vols. T. 4, M.-L., 1947

3. Babkin D.S. Process A.N. Radishchev. M.-L., 1957

4. Lukov V.A. Pre-romanticism. M., 2006

6. Pashkurov A.N., Razzhivin A.I. History of Russian literature of the eighteenth century: Proc. for university students educational institutions: at 2 o'clock - Elabuga: YSPU. –2010. - part 1.

7. Makogonenko G.P. Radishchev and his time. M., 1956

–  –  –

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the structure of the initiation motive in works about the First and Second World Wars. The nuclear-peripheral motive model is singled out and considered in the works of Erich Maria Remarque, Richard Aldington, Ernest Hemingway and Viktor Nekrasov. Moving the motif from the core to the periphery and vice versa allows us to talk about the plot-forming function of the motif in the works of writers. Certain typological convergences are also manifested at the spatio-temporal level. The presence of common features of different levels of the text (compositional, motive-thematic and space-time) among the writers of German, American, English and Russian literature allows us to conclude that the typological commonality of the motive structures of the structures under consideration.

Key words: initiation motif, comparative literature, military prose, composition, plot, artistic space.

The motive of initiation and its role in the structure of a literary text are considered by V.Ya. Propp in his book Morphology of a Fairy Tale. Propp argued that the structure of the fairy tale plot reflects the process of initiation (as an example, he referred to totemic initiations). However, this motif lies not only at the basis of the plot of the fairy tale. When considering the motivic structure military prose we have identified a set of motifs similar to that analyzed by Propp in his Morphology.

This article examines the motive of initiation in the structure of military prose1.

In the traditional sense, initiation is a rite associated with a particular stage of culture. In the psychological sense, initiation2, in the words of M. Eliade, is “ahistorical archetypal behavior of the psyche”. In many cases, initiations are accompanied by difficult psychological and physical tests. At the end of the initiation, purification rites are performed. As a rule, the newly initiated receives certain insignia, emphasizing the social line between the initiated and the uninitiated.

Our model is based on the traditional (three-part) scenario of initiation, according to which the initiate moves away from people, undergoes death-transformation, and is reborn as another person. The material was prose about the First World War: three novels about the First World War (“All Quiet on the Western Front” by E.M. Remarque, “The Death of a Hero” by R. Aldington and “Farewell to Arms!” by E. Hemingway), as well as a story IN.

Nekrasov "In hometown about World War II.

So, the first stage, moving away from people, corresponds to the stage of growing up, or the preparatory stage.

The second is for front-line everyday life and the third is for rebirth. Each of the stages has its own characteristics at different levels of the text: compositional, motive-thematic and space-time. Let's consider the first of the stages in more detail.

I. Compositional level.

It should be noted that this stage is presented in the text in different ways. We can find the most complete picture of growing up and education in Remarque and Aldington. Both authors describe in detail the growing up of the central character, his spiritual world, family relationships, friends, etc. This can be explained by the task that the writers themselves set for themselves when writing works. After all, both Remarque and Aldington did not just create a text about the First World War - they tried to discover and explain the causes of the tragedy.

Hemingway (like Nekrasov), in contrast to Remarque and Aldington, provides extremely scarce information about the hero’s young years (childhood and youth). This can be interpreted as follows. If Remarque and Aldington need to show the formation of the hero's worldview - from support public policy and war to complete denial, then Hemingway and Nekrasov had a completely different task. America did not act as an aggressor, like the German Empire, and was not an active participant in hostilities from the first days, like England. Therefore, Henry Hemingway's Frederick is a lone hero, he is not one of many, like Remarque's Paul Bäumer or Aldington's George Winterbourne. His participation in hostilities is his personal choice, which is dictated by inner convictions. That is why it is not so important for the reader to know about his past: about the hobbies of childhood and youth, about family and friends. The main thing is to realize the trauma that the war itself caused, to understand the motives of his refusal to fight at the front and the conscious flight from the front line.

Kerzhentsev, on the other hand, fulfills his duty, acts as a defender of the motherland, therefore Nekrasov focuses on the real hero, giving only rare allusions to his past.

It is worth noting that war poetry about World War II has already been analyzed in terms of the rite of passage. The work of Remarque and Aldington was also analyzed [see: 8, 9].

Of particular interest is the article by R. Efimkina “Three initiations in “female” fairy tales”, which presents the interpretation of the rite in a psychological aspect.

One of the ancient examples of a full-fledged and broad interaction of literatures is the exchange of traditions between the Greek and Roman literatures of antiquity. Once borrowed artistic values ​​were later transferred to other peoples of Europe. The heritage of antiquity formed the artistic base of Renaissance literature. In turn, the ideas, themes and images of the Italian Renaissance influenced not only the literature of France and England, but a century later found an echo in European classicism.

In the 19th century, the formation of a complex whole concept of "world literature" (this term was proposed by I. Goethe) begins. With the strengthening of world ideological, cultural, and economic ties, a new basis for constant and close interaction of literatures has developed.

In the twentieth century, the interaction of literatures becomes truly global. The major literatures of the East and Latin America are actively included in the world literary process.

The interaction of literatures is determined not by the taste choice of individual samples for assimilation and imitation, and not by the personal predilections of individual writers for achievements. foreign literatures. This interaction of cultures as a whole takes place on the historical ground of great national demands. Thus, the rapid spread of the ideas of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century in the literatures of Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia at the beginning of the 19th century is explained not by the “French education” of many European writers, but by the situation of a serious social crisis that then seized other countries of Europe. And the depth of perception of the ideas of French enlightenment and freethinking depended on how deep this crisis was in each individual country.

The role played by Russian literature in this process of mutual enrichment is peculiar. After many diverse influences from Western European literatures were absorbed with extraordinary speed during the Pushkin era, from the second half of XIX century, Russian literature itself began to influence the course of literary development throughout the world. On the one hand, the powerful influence of L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Chekhov was experienced by literature developed countries. On the other hand, Russian literature contributed to the progress of literatures that were delayed in their development (for example, in Bulgaria), literatures of the national outskirts of Russia. The impact here was not always direct. Thus, for example, Tatar literature adopted the Russian experience earlier than many other Turkic literatures; and she was the conductor of artistic progress in the literature of Central Asia. Writers from a number of republics of the USSR (V. Bykov, Ch. Aitmatov, and others) through translations into Russian simultaneously exchange experience with each other and contribute to the development of Russian literature.

Under the new historical conditions, Soviet literature had a powerful influence on the artistic development of the whole world. The heroes of the best works of socialist realism served as a vivid example and model for the artists of many countries.

At present, the interaction of literatures is provided by a wide network of international creative unions, associations and permanent conferences of writers, literary critics and translators. A number of national literatures, as a result of interactions with other literatures, develop rapidly and in a short time go through those stages of growth that in more developed literatures required several centuries. The interaction of literatures also determines the rapid formation of literatures among those peoples who previously did not have a written language at all (Soviet literatures of the former national outskirts). The interaction of literatures accelerates progress in the most diverse spheres of the spiritual life of mankind, it is closely connected with the logic of world processes.

The scientific study of the interaction of literatures is carried out by comparative literary criticism.